"I don't feel better than anyone, because we need past champions to pave the way for our generation and we have become very professional," he said.

"They have led the way and inspired myself and other players to chase the big records out there.

"Back in the day they weren't doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us 'you should do this and win that and you'll be considered the greatest of all time'.

the bold part particularly
I'm fairly sure it was Rod Laver who said this in at least 2 different interviews that I've seen. I think one of these interviews was at Wimbledon.

He said something like "Back in the days things were very different. Players just play tennis. No one was ever thinking about setting or breaking records. It just was never on anybody's mind. That's how it was back then. It's different nowaday."

I'm sure you can find these interviews somewhere on youtube. I'm too lazy to look.

I think that's a fair answer. If everyone who ever played was gunning for records and GOAT-status, who knows who might be the GOAT?

That, of course, doesn't take away from the fact that Federer holds most of the records, it just means that reality is imperfect. For example, you're never going to be able to say Federer was the most talented tennis player ever, because there could've been a great tennis talent who broke a leg at age 14 and was never the same thereafter, or a great tennis talent who never picked up a racquet and so never realized their potential, or a dozen other things.

In an imperfect reality, it can only be said that Federer holds the majority of records by which we judge great professional tennis players. Loosely, we refer to this as GOAT, but that's an imperfect term impacted by our linguistic and practical limitations.

One of the greatest tennis players ever.
This man loves the game of tennis and is probably the last of the true tennis players.
Becuase he is Swiss many mistake personality with arrogance.
The Swiss you want running the business preferably the global economy.
I do not see the game going uphill after he retires especially with WTA riding the bootstraps of the ATP. And truly "riding" the ATP.

"I don't feel better than anyone, because we need past champions to pave the way for our generation and we have become very professional," he said.

"They have led the way and inspired myself and other players to chase the big records out there.

"Back in the day they weren't doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us 'you should do this and win that and you'll be considered the greatest of all time'.

Q. Both McEnroe and Agassi said in the World Team Tennis match this July that tennis right now at the top, men’s tennis is the toughest ever. Do you think you four guys are the toughest maybe in history in terms of competing against each other and winning events?

ROGER FEDERER: I’d say no, but I don’t know. Just because you look back maybe 15 years, then you have Sampras, Edberg, Becker, and Agassi, I don’t know who else. Those guys weren’t good or what? Do you know what I mean?

You look back, further back, 20 years, and you have the Connors and the Lendls. Those weren’t good either? I mean, I don’t know. So for me I think that’s respectful.

It’s just different times and definitely more athletic, there’s no doubt about that. But then again we don’t play doubles. We don’t play mixed. Maybe we play less matches today because it’s more taxing, but we do play less best‑of‑five set tennis than they used to play. You can’t compare really.

but we have somewhat of a golden era right now. I feel that truly. It’s nice to see Andy making his move at the Olympics, nice to see Novak having an absolutely ridiculous year last year, and then Rafa and myself still being around. It’s definitely good times. Past that you still have great champions as well. It’s very interesting at the top right now, and the depth I think has never been greater than right now. There’s no doubt about that.

No matter what he says, it's never good enough for you, is it? If he says he's the best, he's being arrogant. If he says he's not the best, he's lying and in some way still arrogant(?).
You know, instead of criticizing the guy over and over, try respecting him. Some people don't like him because it all seems to come so easy to him and Nadal seems like such a fighter, such a hard worker and he still doesn't have Federer's succes. Well do you think it's normal for a person to have so much succes and still make it look like it's all coming easy to him? Do you have any idea how hard it must be? He trains day in day out at the age of 31 to be able to compete against these young talents. I can imagine him thinking: "Why the hell am I even doing this? Pfft.. I've done enough hard work in my life and I've achieved enough. Screw this, I think I've deserved some rest". But he just keeps on going. He's always nice to the reporters, always is politically correct, even when they keep bugging him with retirement questions. He never gets angry at the press. Never yells at them to just shut up. I would snap, saying things like: How dare you imply that I'm not good enough for this generation anymore? Do you know who I am? I'm Roger Federer ! You are nothing compared to me, you should be thankful that I'm even sitting here listening to your boring, repetitive questions. Why don't you all just f*** off and go back home to your mediocre lives, you don't deserve to breathe the same air as me.

But.. he doesn't do that. He just keeps on acting cool and being the best. How someone can do all of that, I have NO idea. Honestly, I have no idea.

"I don't feel better than anyone, because we need past champions to pave the way for our generation and we have become very professional," he said.

"They have led the way and inspired myself and other players to chase the big records out there.

"Back in the day they weren't doing that, they were just playing to play tennis. Things have changed dramatically with the press reminding us 'you should do this and win that and you'll be considered the greatest of all time'.

"And anyway I don't think you can compare different eras in tennis."

Click to expand...

This is really gonna screw up TMF's thinking--he always quoting players who think Fed is the greatest.

Nadal on the other hand has beaten his arse at Wimbledon and the AO twice.

This is why Roger crumbled and tanked the matches against Novak, knowing that if he had to face Rafa in the final he was going to lose to him at USO as well. That kind of thing is too much to bear for sir Rogi.

Nadal on the other hand has beaten his arse at Wimbledon and the AO twice.

This is why Roger crumbled and tanked the matches against Novak, knowing that if he had to face Rafa in the final he was going to lose to him at USO as well. That kind of thing is too much to bear for sir Rogi.

Click to expand...

It is not Federer's fault if Nadal can't make the final. Anyhow this thread is kind of stupid because Federer would never say he's the GOAT anyway, just as Laver or Sampras wouldn't say they were if they were asked the same question.

Nadal on the other hand has beaten his arse at Wimbledon and the AO twice.

This is why Roger crumbled and tanked the matches against Novak, knowing that if he had to face Rafa in the final he was going to lose to him at USO as well. That kind of thing is too much to bear for sir Rogi.

Click to expand...

And Nadal was simply not good enough to deny Federer a FO title. Federer was there in RG 09 final, while Nadal was gone fishing.

Federer just can't win this. Federer might as well just say "I'm the GOAT so you can suck it". There is no point in being nice for Federer or any top players because cynical morons like you will always come up with a way to demonize the action.

If you are a top tennis pro, the following applies:

Charity work= PR stuff. Also, you are a greedy bstard and trying to get a little tax break.

Say something nice about your rivals= Being a shameless phony in front of the camera.

Nadal on the other hand has beaten his arse at Wimbledon and the AO twice.

This is why Roger crumbled and tanked the matches against Novak, knowing that if he had to face Rafa in the final he was going to lose to him at USO as well. That kind of thing is too much to bear for sir Rogi.

Click to expand...

Yeah, because, once again, Nadal failed to show up.

Seriously, if your best argument is that Federer isn't as good as Nadal because Nadal is too bad to make it to the finals, then you might want to reconsider your thinking.

Federer didn't say, "I'm not the GOAT." He said he did not feel better than anyone (which is a lie, anyway).

Click to expand...

What Federer:

1) says or doesn't say, and
2)w hat his body language says,

are two different things.

Body language does not lie. He can only pretend nothing affects him for so long until his body language begins to reveal the truth. Perfect example, refer to the beginning of the 4th set of their 2012 AO match wherein his body language screamed "I SIMPLY CAN'T BEAT THIS GUY".

Body language does not lie. He can only pretend nothing affects him for so long until his body language begins to reveal the truth. Perfect example, refer to the beginning of the 4th set of their 2012 AO match wherein his body language screamed "I SIMPLY CAN'T BEAT THIS GUY".

Click to expand...

Yeah and since you use 2012 slam encounter as an example, Pete's body language in 2000 and 2001 USO finals screamed "I'M SCREWED, THESE WEAK ERA CLOWNS ARE SIMPLY TOO GOOD FOR ME"

That's great, except that I don't give a crap what he put down that loss to.

He got embarrassed in two USO finals in a row by two supposedly weak era players, you (and Sampras) can put that down to whatever you like.

Yeah, it's better getting pwned by Yzagas, Kuceras, Delgados and Scuds of the world instead of losing to another great player.

Click to expand...

Upsets happened often before homegenisation, deal with it, and not just in Pete's day, well before Pete was born. Does that make these players better than Sampras? Sampras often got his opponent back and squared up. But getting belted in 3 of the 4 slams on a whole to your greatest rival means, quite simply, your opponent is better. I mean what else can you put it down to? Alright, lets take the FO out FFS...guess what....still 3-2 to Nadal. **** me, what else would you put it down to? Mismatch issues? Mental? Well guess what, that's all part of being a professional tennis player, learn to handle it and get better and beat your direct rival when it matters, instead of sooking. In a big slam final, more people would put their house on Nadal over Fed...is this the only sport where the faith is put on a player playing against the GOAT? Can you see how silly that seems, more people would put their house or life in the hands of Nadal in a big BO5 set slam final...anyt slam final. But obviously *******s can't see how ridiculous that is because all they see is 17, even though slams weren't always the be all and end all for guys like Laver, Borg and others.

Upsets happened often before homegenisation, deal with it, and not just in Pete's day, well before Pete was born.

Click to expand...

This, of course, is just a huge bunch of crap. It's all a question of dominance--Federer was ultra-dominant, Sampras not that much (he just benefited from... you know the drill ). Let's take another dominant #1, Lendl. Care to list the upsets he suffered in slams once he hit his stride? Same with Borg. Go on, make a list, and we'll see whether this only comes down to 'homogenisation'.

But getting belted in 3 of the 4 slams on a whole to your greatest rival means, quite simply, your opponent is better.

Click to expand...

No, it means your opponent is better in the match-up, tennis measures performance against the field, you don't get any extra points for beating top 10 or top 5 player, all-time great etc.

But let's put it this way, according to your brilliant logic, Fed would have been a better player had he utterly sucked on clay like your idol, missed 2009 AO (like your idol did in 1999) and lost in the 4th round AO in 2012 (like your idol did at the same age in 2002) which makes zero sense.

I mean what else can you put it down to? Alright, lets take the FO out FFS...guess what....still 3-2 to Nadal.

Click to expand...

Same answer as above:

According to your brilliant logic, Fed would have been a better player had he utterly sucked on clay like your idol, missed 2009 AO (like your idol did in 1999) and lost in the 4th round AO in 2012 (like your idol did at the same age in 2002) which makes zero sense.

**** me, what else would you put it down to? Mismatch issues? Mental? Well guess what, that's all part of being a professional tennis player, learn to handle it and get better and beat your direct rival when it matters, instead of sooking.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter what I would put it down to, losing to another great player is not a shame, certainly not as much as losing to a bunch of no namers and being irrelevant on one surface while claiming your idol is Rod Laver.

Unlike Sampras when it comes to FO (according to most of his fans he didn't care about FO after 1996 hence the explanation for crap performances after), Fed never gave up against Nadal, he dusted himself off and tried again.

But obviously *******s can't see how ridiculous that is because all they see is 17, even though slams weren't always the be all and end all for guys like Laver, Borg and others.

Click to expand...

I'd likely put Laver above Fed (or anyone else for that matter) in all-time great standing and Borg on equal level at the very least so again irrelevant.

Though I do find your complaining hilarious given that "slams only matter" mantra came from your idol and his fans still parrot his 14 slam titles when comparing him to players such as Borg and Nadal as much as Fed fans do.

I especially find it funny when Sampras fans claim Borg and/or Nadal can't be considered better than Sampras because he has 3 more slams but the same logic doesn't apply when it comes to Sampras and Fed because uh... his H2H against Nadal! Like Sampras had anything to do with it (it's Nadal who earned that not Pete), heck one time he played teenage Fed at Wimbledon he got his *** kicked.